In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court granted relief to journalist Arnab Goswami, staying all coercive actions against him in an FIR registered under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case pertained to a news report on the demolition of a temple in Rajgarh, Rajasthan, aired on Republic Bharat, a Hindi news channel under the Republic Media Network.
Background of the Case
The FIR (No. 276/2022) was lodged at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, alleging that the telecast of the news report promoted enmity between different religious communities. Goswami, the Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network, was accused of being responsible for the content aired by the channel.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, assisted by Muktesh Maheshwari and Vandana Bhansali, appearing via video conferencing. The State of Rajasthan was represented by Deputy Government Advocate Vikram Rajpurohit, while Respondent No. 2, Pawan Khera, was represented by Shivang Soni and Karan Sharma, though they did not appear during the hearing.
Court’s Key Observations and Legal Issues
Presiding over the matter, Justice Farjand Ali meticulously analyzed the legal grounds on which the case was built. The court identified several fundamental issues, primarily focusing on:
Lack of Substantial Evidence: The court observed that the FIR did not provide any transcripts, video clippings, or substantial proof connecting Goswami to statements that could incite enmity between communities.
Essentials of Section 153A IPC Not Met: The court underscored that for an offence under Section 153A to be established, the accused must have intentionally promoted enmity through words, signs, or visual representation. In this case, there was no evidence to indicate Goswami’s direct involvement in the news segment or its editorial decision-making.
Chilling Effect on Journalism: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was an attempt to silence independent journalism and that selective targeting of Goswami, while other media houses aired similar content, raised questions about the impartiality of the investigation.
Precedents in Similar Cases: The court noted that a coordinate bench had previously granted relief in analogous circumstances, suggesting that the FIR could be an instrument of harassment rather than a legitimate legal proceeding.
Court’s Verdict
After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, staying all coercive measures against Arnab Goswami. Justice Ali, in his order, stated:
“A careful reading of the FIR and submissions indicate that the essential ingredients of Section 153A are not satisfied in the present case. The lack of specificity in allegations raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the prosecution’s case.”
The court further observed:
“Mere reporting of an event of public interest, devoid of inflammatory intent or impact, cannot be construed as an offence under Section 153A.”
Additionally, the court made a strong remark on the possible misuse of legal provisions to target journalists:
“The continued investigation, despite the apparent lack of evidence, suggests an attempt to suppress journalistic freedom and subject the Petitioner to unwarranted legal proceedings,” he said.
The court directed the Public Prosecutor to procure the case diary and scheduled the next hearing after eight weeks. Until the disposal of the main petition, no coercive action shall be taken against Goswami.
